The EPA: They Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Climate Treaty

Pajamas Media ^ | Dec. 27 | Dan Miller

[AJKauf]

There was lots of fuss in Copenhagen as masses of party attendees emitted more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide just getting to and from there. They damned the wickedness of the rich nations (who made possible the aircraft in which they traveled) in poisoning the atmosphere and then lamented the failure of President Obama to work his magic and pull a treaty out of somebody’s hat — most anybody’s hat but their own. Even so, and despite the sulphurous fumes still emitted by the president of the United States, they probably had a good time enjoying the first-world delights of Copenhagen, including the prostitutes available to them gratis. Perhaps it will have a cathartic effect, but that seems unlikely.

The best they could come up with was a nonbinding accord to curb global warming. President Obama predicted that it would probably be endorsed by a plenary session of the conference. He then departed for Washington before the plenary session actually voted. He cleverly observed that, despite the unprecedented although feeble outcome, and the far less than even modest expectations, “we will not be bound by anything that took place today.” Huh? In the end, the nonbinding accord was not endorsed. Instead, it was merely “taken note of” and viewed as “binding” on whatever countries “endorsed” it, whatever that means, which seems inconsistent with President Obama’s earlier statement about not being bound....

[Wolfie]

Government agencies have been acting this way for decades. Just ask the DEA.

[freekitty]

Get rid of the EPA.

[Brilliant]

Why doesn’t Obama just sign Kyoto? He and the Dems have been trashing Bush for 8 years for not signing it. He has the power to do it now, yet notta.

[microgood]

I find it amazing that a bunch of lawyers (Supreme Court) think they can evaluate the veracity of global warming claims. These people really do live in an alternate universe. They are not in contact with reality in any way.

[Bon mots]

Right!

BTW... I think you meant “Nada” (notta?), Spanish for “Nothing”.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Rockingham]

Actually, the Supreme Court deserves some credit here. In a trilogy of cases that began with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, the Supreme Court struck a blow against 'junk science' and tightened standards for the admission of scientific and other expert opinion testimony. In the proper case, the EPA could be challenged to produce and prove up its scientific evidence for human caused global warming. The Daubert standard would apply as a matter of threshold admissibility for scientific opinion testimony from both the EPA and any challengers.